Legal responsibilities with no carry signs?

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by MattMac27, May 26, 2010.

  1. MattMac27

    MattMac27 New Member

    1
    0
    0
    I have always wondered if there are any legal responsibilities or obligations that a private citizen or public business takes on when they post a no concealed carry sign? It would seem to me that by honoring their wishes and not carrying a firearm for personal protection that they are assuming the role of ensuring your safety. Is this accurate? If so, do the businesses that post these signs truly have any idea the liability they are bearing for all of their customers?
     
  2. dunerunner

    dunerunner New Member

    8,411
    3
    0
    It would seem that way to me, also. I also feel that any State, City or County that denies an individual the right to self defense assumes that responsibility as well. But, I'm not a lawyer......my parents were married! :D
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2010

  3. NGIB

    NGIB New Member

    7,143
    1
    0
    I'd say the answer is no as the Supreme Court has found (more than once) that the police are under no duty to protect you. Signs currently have no legal weight in GA, if however you are asked to leave you must - or be guilty of criminal trespass...
     
  4. doctherock

    doctherock New Member

    5,132
    1
    0
    If the gun is properly concealed the business owner or restaurant should be none the wiser. I don't let people know I'm packing because its none of their business.
     
  5. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    This is a really good question.

    On the one hand, if you don't like the policy, don't set foot on "no weapons zone" property.

    On the other hand, what if that's where you work and virtually every employer in your area has a similar policy?

    That would seem to be a factor that might require employers, doctors' offices, etc. to provide security if there is no alternative for people to choose.

    I guess, when in doubt, side with the rights of the property owner. If every employer and every doctor, dentist, etc. won't let you in the door carrying, then it's time for you to move. Still, it's a really interesting question.
     
  6. robocop10mm

    robocop10mm Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    11,380
    1
    0
    I know of no case where the owner/operator of an establishment was found liable for the injuries to it's customers unless there was obvious negligence on their part. Due to the current liberal undercurrent in most courts, I find it unlikely you would win a case if you were injured/killed while on someone's property when that injury was caused by a third party unassociated with the establishment.

    ie; a robber comes in while you are there and you get shot by him. You could argue they contributed to the injury by not allowing you to defend yourself, but they will counter they had no way of knowing some random scum bag would come in, rob the place and start shooting. If they had recurring problems or if their employee just "went off" USPS style, you might have a case. I am sure it will be an uphill battle that most attorneys would be reluctant to undertake on a contingency basis.
     
  7. dunerunner

    dunerunner New Member

    8,411
    3
    0
    But, wait! If I put in a swimming pool and a neighbor kid climbs my fence and drowns....The pool is considered to be an attractive nuisance and I as the home owner am responsible for insuring proper fencing, signage and safety equipment is available. If a kid climbs my fence while I am on vacation and is injured or drowns, I'm liable.

    I contend that a gun free zone is an attractive nuisance to criminals as it represents an easy or soft target. I further contend that that business, City, County or State is therefore responsible for my safety, should they elect to deny me the right to protect myself.

    I would love to argue this in court. But then I would have to go back in time and see to it that my parents never married.
     
  8. c3shooter

    c3shooter Administrator Staff Member

    21,344
    222
    63
    Runner- IF you have your pool properly fenced, the claimant can go pound sand. Having an attractive nuisance (used to have a redhead secretary like that) increases you duty to protect- it does not remove defenses against a claim of negligence.

    IANAL, but I DO work in the arena of liabilities.

    Have seen one case that held a property owner liable for criminal acts on the property- It was the Lake Wright Motel in Norfolk VA, several years back. REPEATED attacks on guests, and no action taken to improve security. Have not seen a "disarmed and helpless" case tried.
     
  9. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    Neither do I. But I also don't know of a situation where law-abiding people who carry just start shooting for no good reason.

    If an office building is in a bad part of town and the owner of that property deliberately requires the people on his property to be disarmed, could that be construed as negligence? (I'm playing devil's advocate. Maybe this could work in court, maybe it couldn't.)

    Agreed.

    What's funny is if you get hurt on someone's property...trip over a rake on a lawn, slip on ice on the sidewalk out front, etc. people have successfully sued the private property owner. At least that's how it works here in the land of absurd litigation.

    Doesn't the "they had no way of knowing some random scum bag would come in" work both ways? They never know when it might happen, so what is the justification for disarming the good guys?

    It's screwed up. Yes, private property owners can set any rules they want. It just bugs be when I see the "Weapons Free Zone" sign on my office door every morning because it is so illogical. It panders to people who "feel" more than "think" and actually puts people in harm's way.

    (Where I work, there was a shooting a few years back where a guy (not sure if he was an employee or not) entered a credit union office. One guy died and another was injured. They never caught the criminal.)
     
  10. Yunus

    Yunus New Member

    5,250
    0
    0
    What if we flip this situation. Let's say a property owner does not have a sign restricting CC. One day an accidental discharge takes place and someone is injured. Should the property owner be liable for NOT putting a sign up restricting firearms?

    Personally I think in both cases you enter private property and there is no sign, you assume a risk that someone might be carrying and there are risks involved with that, the opposite is also true, you enter private property with a sign restricting and you assume the risks involved and there are risks with that as well.

    But the courts and I take a different view on many subjects. I also think that if you climb my fence to jump into my pool and get injured, you should be charged with trespassing and be forced to pay for some pool chemicals for me since you messed with the PH when you got in.
     
  11. steve666

    steve666 New Member

    627
    0
    0
    Exactly the same here in Indiana.
     
  12. Jo da Plumbr

    Jo da Plumbr New Member

    4,492
    0
    0
    INL but IMO

    A pool is fenced and someone climbs the fence and gets hurt, not the fault of the pool owner. If someone walks thru an open gate to the pool and gets hurt, pool owner libel.

    Property owner / business owner posts no firearms sign, someone gets shot in a hold-up, owner not libel. The no firearms sign was violated by the criminal. Owner liability would be covered by the sign you are thinking makes him open to liability.

    Now if there is a no firearms sign and a woman gets raped, then I could see an issue of her being left defenseless by the owner’s policy.

    My .02
     
  13. dunerunner

    dunerunner New Member

    8,411
    3
    0
    Uh, what I'm trying to say, in a very clumsy way; is that no gun zones represent a soft target for criminals. A State that does not recognize the right of it's citizens to self defense makes them potential victims of crime. I see culpable negligence here on behalf of the business, City, State or Federal authority who creates a gun free zone, thus removing the individuals right to self defense.
     
  14. Doc3402

    Doc3402 New Member

    2,823
    0
    0
    I know it's an old thread, but I just had a conversation with an attorney about this a couple weeks ago. Yes, he is a Democrat on paper but his attitude is more Centrist.

    My bank had the familiar handgun with a circle and slash sign posted on their door. I asked this guy about the legal aspects of creating an increased risk to customers by advertising that no law abiding person inside would be able to defend themselves. He thought about it for a few minutes and gave the following answer.

    If it bothers you to go unarmed in the bank, use the drive-thru. The bank has no control over you while you are in your car. If they don't have a drive-thru, and you feel strongly enough about this, change banks. Whether or not they have increased liability is a moot point. You'll still be dead.

    From a lawyer I thought it was a good answer.
     
  15. kycol

    kycol New Member

    1,506
    1
    0
    I would say the same sign would remove the liability from the business.

    I would also say that with most cases, the most money and sharpest lawyer wins.
     
  16. WebleyFosbery38

    WebleyFosbery38 New Member

    7,510
    0
    0
    Even though NY is The Bastion of Liberalism in the East, I have seen very few of these signs upstate. Maybe thats because most of the state other than Albany and NYC are big supporters of the right to bear arms and that would be a dumb sign to hang on a business that depends on actual customers to pay their bills!

    Ironic thing, Dr's, Bars, Restaurants and Hospitals kill more folks doing their business normally than Handguns in their establishment would ever cause! Thats a hoot, you cant bring a gun in here but I might kill you with the botulism laced food I serve, send a drunk down the road driving a 3000 lb automobile or give your wife a botched Boob Job that kills her!

    Property owners rights are very important, if someone doesnt want guns on their property, that is their right. Announcing that with a sign makes statements I wouldnt want to make publicly if I were a business owner but thats their right if they wish to risk the lives of their patrons for a political statement. I dont know a single person that would go to a business just because they cater to anti-gun flakes so I just dont get their point!

    The outcome is synonymous with saying, "This is the perfect place to commit a crime, nobody on this premises can defend themselves"! Like an idiot putting a sign on their lawn that says they oppose the 2nd amendment, might as well say, "Come-on in Mr Crook"!

    Myself, I will vote with my feet, anyone that doesnt allow the free practice of our Constitutional Right to carry might have objections with other rights as well' They dont get my Business, I wont purposely subject myself or my family to any risk that could be present because of that sign.
     
  17. JD1969

    JD1969 New Member

    748
    0
    0
    I see it this way. As a business/property owner I have the right to put up a no firearms sign. You as free citizen have the right to not set foot upon my property or do business with me. Folks, we cannot have it both ways. If we want the freedom to CC, they also should have the freedom to say "sorry, no guns allowed". If you don't like it, shop someplace else.
     
  18. boutaswell

    boutaswell New Member

    23
    0
    0
    Afraid I have to agree with JD1969. One of the founding blocks of this country was the right to have private property. As a private property owner, I have (or should have until the govt tells me I can't) ultimate authority. On the other hand, I don't like being told I can't carry either; but, if a private property owner understands the wisdom of private property ownership rights, they should understand 2nd Amendment rights also. Not always gonna happen that way but I can use my rose colored glasses if I wish.
     
  19. WebleyFosbery38

    WebleyFosbery38 New Member

    7,510
    0
    0
    I agree with both of you and certainly respect their right to set the rules on their own property. I dont carry and likely never will, it really doesnt affect the way I have to map out my day. People where I live rarely if ever shoot each other, I wouldnt live where they did; If it gets that way here, then I will carry a bazooka and move!

    Those that carry legally may find it uncomfortable to leave their piece in the car, I dont blame them, they carry for a myriad of reasons. I just dont think it makes any sense to feed into the fear mongering about guns by accepting limitations based on bias and misinformation.

    Legal firearms owners are infinitely less likely to harm anyone with their firearm than a motorist with their vehicle of choice, be it a Snowmobile, Automobile, 4 Wheeler or a Semi! More people die in cars than are killed in gun related non combat related Deaths each year. 17,000 vs 49,000. The vehicles were accidents by law abiding citizens who made a mistake, the 16,000 are homicides by crooks that dont read sign not law abiding citizens who do.

    In NY City, only the Cops and the crooks carry firearms but the crooks outnumber the cops 100 to one, just look at Attica, Sing Sing and Fishkill! For every one in prison, there are 4 more that arent. Keeping legal handguns out of the hands of citizens hasnt helped them in NY City as of yet. I feel safer when I know someone other than a crook at the end of the bar or a cop 20 minutes away may be able to prevent a bloodbath, just the mere possibility of that happening has the effect of encouraging the riff raff to go elsewhere.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2012
  20. dark67horse

    dark67horse New Member

    4
    0
    0
    I prefer to patronize businesses that display signs like "Criminals prefer unarmed victim s." & NRA. There may not be alot of logic involved in a drug motivated criminal mind, but a shop that has a sign saying no firearms allowed seems an easier target.